New Lockdown

[Jakubclaret]

There’s always got to be someone to blame hasn’t there. Does it make people feel better to pin the blame of this situation on a certain section of society that is different to them?

Oh so the alternative suggestion is - we don't need to hold people accountable for anything, let people get away with murder it's no big deal!

[Rileybobs]

Oh so the alternative suggestion is - we don't need to hold people accountable for anything, let people get away with murder it's no big deal!

Yeah, the alternative is to let people get away with murder. What a pickle we’re in.

[Jakubclaret]

Yeah, the alternative is to let people get away with murder. What a pickle we’re in.

It's reassuring you are taking things seriously, it's just 1 big joke to some people.

[Elizabeth]

Glad my observations have produced some interest.
First BA, why do you ask me what I mean by 'other types' ?
Both your questions suggest you might be involved in data collecting yourself but there again maybe not. The second one isn't as strange as your other one so I can help you there.
If you mean by observations you are thinking I may have passed the queue now and then and possibly jumped to the wrong conclusion you would be mistaken.

[dushanbe]

Glad my observations have produced some interest.
First BA, why do you ask me what I mean by 'other types' ?
Both your questions suggest you might be involved in data collecting yourself but there again maybe not. The second one isn't as strange as your other one so I can help you there.
If you mean by observations you are thinking I may have passed the queue now and then and possibly jumped to the wrong conclusion you would be mistaken.

Have you had a bang on the head?

[Elizabeth]

Now that you have rectified your error riley I can tell you that you have already made your mind up what I mean so all this 'out of interest' nonsense doesn't work.

[Elizabeth]

You are rude dushanbe, I think that's all the response you need from me

[Rileybobs]

Now that you have rectified your error riley I can tell you that you have already made your mind up what I mean so all this 'out of interest' nonsense doesn't work.

Strange that you’re unwilling to expand on what you consider young. I asked sincerely about what age you consider young because I personally know of a number of people, just this week alone, whose children have been sent home from school or nursery for having a minor cough or cold, and told they couldn’t return until they produced a negative test. This forces not only the children, but both parents to isolate at home for 2 weeks. So naturally these people, who you may consider young (hence me asking), are desperate to get a test.

Interestingly enough, less than 2% of people tested are actually testing positive, so I wouldn’t read too much into the demographic of people that you see in a queue for a single testing centre. Although you’ve already made your mind up that it’s young people or ‘other types’ to blame.

[dushanbe]

You are rude dushanbe, I think that's all the response you need from me

And you’re mental, let’s call it a draw.

[Elizabeth]

I cannot think that you would ask me anything sincerely riley based on how you have argued your point with me on the Captain thread and referenced my 'idiotic' behaviour when I regrettably mentioned a personal covid experience with a loved member of my family.

[Elizabeth]

Yes let's. I win on penalties though

[Rileybobs]

I cannot think that you would ask me anything sincerely riley based on how you have argued your point with me on the Captain thread and referenced my 'idiotic' behaviour when I regrettably mentioned a personal covid experience with a loved member of my family.

Well I have asked sincerely, so are you going to answer? There’s not much point in you posting on this forum if you aren’t willing to engage with others.

I can’t be bothered going back to the Captain Tom thread where I posted my unpopular opinion. It’s not my fault that you disagreed with it but I don’t think that I was insincere. I don’t recall the incident I referred to as idiotic - wasn’t it hugging an elderly relative during lockdown? In which case I stand by that statement, and it’s quite ironic that you are now blaming others for cases rising.

[ksrclaret]

Yes, people are allowed to gather in groups of thirty to play football or go shooting. I can see why you're opposed to both football and shooting being allowed to continue; I wouldn't agree, though.

What gets my goat is the many people who sneer at the shooters while not at all bothered about the footballers. To support the playing of football while opposing the meeting of shooters can surely only be a matter of class prejudice, and nothing to do with coronavirus prevention.

Not sure why you're taking issue with my post. I was praising the government for being so in touch with its population and realising that grouse shooting is what we're all wondering about. Thankfully they've put all our minds at ease and confirmed we can all go grouse shooting, should we so wish.

I am glad they're also letting the football continue though, for now at least. They're so good to us. I'm sure they'll be eager to know how Aston Ham get on this weekend.

[Elizabeth]

Yes it is ironic when I suspect some of the younger people in the testing queues in the last couple of weeks have been party goers flouting social distancing and getting checked out after the weekend to check they weren't going to pass on the virus to their grandmothers when they hugged them later that week. My elderly mother survived my hug but then I knew she would because I had been following social distancing and all the other precautions. I hadn't hugged her for weeks and took a calculated risk, different to what's going on at the moment.
Opinions will differ but I can't take people seriously when they are always looking for an argument.

[Rileybobs]

Yes it is ironic when I suspect some of the younger people in the testing queues in the last couple of weeks have been party goers flouting social distancing and getting checked out after the weekend to check they weren't going to pass on the virus to their grandmothers when they hugged them later that week. My elderly mother survived my hug but then I knew she would because I follow social distancing and all the other precautions.
Opinions will differ but I can't take people seriously when they are always looking for an argument.

I’m not looking for an argument. I was simply asking what age you consider to be young. Because, as I explained in my follow up post, plenty of parents to young children will have needed to take tests for the children to return to school or nursery. Likewise, people who have displayed symptoms and cannot go to work without a negative test result will need to have taken tests. I am asking do you consider these people to be young?

You suspecting that young people in a queue were party-goers seems ill-conceived to me. The people who are showing a total disregard for other people’s safety are surely unlikely to be bothered about taking a test. And like I say, less than 2% of people in that queue will have tested positive in any case, so it seems like you’re just being very prejudiced against others.

And for what it’s worth, I don’t blame you for hugging your elderly parent. That’s a risk that you were willing to take. But you it’s mightily hypocritical for you to then condemn others for ignoring social distancing, based on nothing but a hunch due to their age or them being an ‘other type’, whatever that means.

[claretandy]

All the tests are being taken up by children with a bit of a sniffle, which over 91% have turned out to be negative. Both of my kids, (1 at junior and 1 at high school) currently have cold type infections, luckily their schools aren't over reacting by sending them home.

[CaptJohn]

It strikes me that the Government is acting like King Canute in trying to stop the virus spreading. He didn't have much success in stopping the tide coming in and I doubt this new round of lockdowns will have much success either. The Government have behaved like headless chickens from the start and now it's becoming farcical.
Stop the lockdown, stop the furlough scheme, end this non eviction for non rent paying tenants stupidity and protect the vulnerable (Elderly and young) and lets get the country back to work. The Swedish method was right all along and where did they get their policy from? The UK of course who should have stuck to their original pandemic plan instead of this ridiculous, untested and downright destructive mish-mash of shutdowns, lockdowns and downright lunacy.
Rant over!

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Does Swedens population density of 25 per km2 help then our compared to 275 per km2?

I can only assume its easier to suppress a virus when people are spread out a bit more.

Oh and what about the rise of Covid in places like Spain etc...

[Swizzlestick]

Also, Sweden has a world class health system funded by relatively high tax rates. Can only imagine what the blue brigade on here would think of that policy.

[fidelcastro]

Does Swedens population density of 25 per km2 help then our compared to 275 per km2?

I can only assume its easier to suppress a virus when people are spread out a bit more.

Oh and what about the rise of Covid in places like Spain etc...

You make a good point about other countries. We seem to be a week or two behind when it comes to cases rising like theirs, but correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't one of the main reasons we locked down in the first place because we didn't want the NHS to become overwhelmed?

If we were to forget the whole thing now and just try and go back to normal, then it's the hospitals and NHS staff who would suffer, not just the vulnerable who catch this dreadful disease.

[taio]

Also, Sweden has a world class health system funded by relatively high tax rates. Can only imagine what the blue brigade on here would think of that policy.

Sweden has a great health care system. World class. Just like the UK's.

[Grumps]

Apparently Covid is now 24th in the table of causes of deaths in the UK, down from 8th.i wonder what the 23 above it are.

[Dyched]

Yes it is ironic when I suspect some of the younger people in the testing queues in the last couple of weeks have been party goers flouting social distancing and getting checked out after the weekend to check they weren't going to pass on the virus to their grandmothers when they hugged them later that week. My elderly mother survived my hug but then I knew she would because I had been following social distancing and all the other precautions. I hadn't hugged her for weeks and took a calculated risk, different to what's going on at the moment.
Opinions will differ but I can't take people seriously when they are always looking for an argument.

If you gave your mother a hug then you haven’t been following social distancing measure.

The rules are clear. It doesn’t state “Keep apart from others, in the pub, in the supermarket, in the shop but you can hug your mum, that’s okay”. There is no difference between 2/3 17 year olds getting drunk together and you hugging your mum.

[Devils_Advocate]

Understandably the focus is on deaths and then hospital submissions but one of the lesser understood areas is what longer term impact this illness is going to have on younger people who often dont even need hospital treatment yet can suffer life changing long term effects from the virus

I guess the flu might kill as many people as Covid but if your in your 20s and 30s and you get flu then apart from a week or two of felling like sh*t your life and wellbeing just returns to normal

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... ill-unwell

[GodIsADeeJay81]

You make a good point about other countries. We seem to be a week or two behind when it comes to cases rising like theirs, but correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't one of the main reasons we locked down in the first place because we didn't want the NHS to become overwhelmed?

If we were to forget the whole thing now and just try and go back to normal, then it's the hospitals and NHS staff who would suffer, not just the vulnerable who catch this dreadful disease.

We sat and watched in horror as Italy's hospitals became swamped and they were forced to choose who to treat.

We didn't want the same to happen here, hence the Save The NHS slogans.
In all fairness a large percentage of the NHS didn't have issues with PPE, or being swamped etc.

If the people in charge had been on the ball instead of flapping all none Covid cases could've been shipped to less infected areas.

[dsr]

Does Swedens population density of 25 per km2 help then our compared to 275 per km2?

I can only assume its easier to suppress a virus when people are spread out a bit more.

No. The population density thing just means that Sweden has a lot more open space where nobody lives.

The population density of the UK is much less than that of England, but it's no easier to stop the spread in the UK than it is in England. If the northern three quarters of Sweden was redesignated Lapland, the population density would dramatically increase but the number of cases and deaths wouldn't.

[Devils_Advocate]

No. The population density thing just means that Sweden has a lot more open space where nobody lives.

The population density of the UK is much less than that of England, but it's no easier to stop the spread in the UK than it is in England. If the northern three quarters of Sweden was redesignated Lapland, the population density would dramatically increase but the number of cases and deaths wouldn't.

Its a head scratcher cos whenever people point to the UK doing worse than countrys who locked down early one of the reasons usually cited is that the UK is more densely populated

[ksrclaret]

Its a head scratcher cos whenever people point to the UK doing worse than countrys who locked down early one of the reasons usually cited is that the UK is more densely populated

Like everything else, these things only count when they back up your thoughts on the matter.

Like when we were all told the country is fed up with experts, unless the experts happen to agree with your opinion. Then we trust the experts and they shouldn’t be questioned. It’s all very confusing.

[dsr]

Its a head scratcher cos whenever people point to the UK doing worse than countrys who locked down early one of the reasons usually cited is that the UK is more densely populated

Not by me. If the population is spread out throughout the country, it makes a difference. If the population lives, as most populations do, in towns and cities of similar sizes and the only difference is the amount of empty space between, it makes little difference.

London might suffer worse because it's so much bigger than Stockholm; I wouldn't know. But Manchester and Stockholm, or for that matter Manchester and Copenhagen, would be near enough I would have thought to make little difference.

[Devils_Advocate]

Not by me. If the population is spread out throughout the country, it makes a difference. If the population lives, as most populations do, in towns and cities of similar sizes and the only difference is the amount of empty space between, it makes little difference.

London might suffer worse because it's so much bigger than Stockholm; I wouldn't know. But Manchester and Stockholm, or for that matter Manchester and Copenhagen, would be near enough I would have thought to make little difference.

Makes sense and when you look at the other Scandinavian country's like Norway and Denmark who locked down early and strongly you see that they blow both us and Sweden out the water on the Covid stats and in terms of economic activity and recovery any differences to those countrys and Sweden is minimal

I guess in summary you could argue thats Sweden strategy was better than our half assed indecisive strategy but where a competent strategy to lockdown early was taken like Norway and Denmark then this has outperformed both us and Sweden

So the model to follow was a strong early lockdown and maybe we'd have managed it far better than we did

[Devils_Advocate]

Report on the success of Sweden's strategy

https://www.newscientist.com/article/22 ... ess-story/

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Not by me. If the population is spread out throughout the country, it makes a difference. If the population lives, as most populations do, in towns and cities of similar sizes and the only difference is the amount of empty space between, it makes little difference.

London might suffer worse because it's so much bigger than Stockholm; I wouldn't know. But Manchester and Stockholm, or for that matter Manchester and Copenhagen, would be near enough I would have thought to make little difference.

More people live in London than there is in Norway, or Sweden.
I'm pretty sure that makes a massive difference, as London density is 4.5k per km2.

It's all well and good pointing at countries with a small population /low density and asking why we didn't cope as well as them but it's also a bit odd.

[Elizabeth]

Fair enough Riley, I may have failed to judge you on merit , perhaps prejudiced by past posts.
My original post compared the queues in recent weeks with queues before Nick Hancock asked young people to think of their grandparents . Prior to that statement I had been able to get tested every week for 4 weeks and by the end there was hardly half a dozen in the queue. The numbers then suddenly exploded and I haven't been able to wait long enough to continue getting tested .
Since the composition of these queues suddenly changed the number of positives in Burnley increased to the extent that we are now back in higher restrictions.
Graphs supplied by the chief medical officer reveal that the increase in positive tests in the last 2-3 weeks nationally have been significant in young people , I think going up to the age around 30.
I accept that not all will be the many irresponsible people going out ignoring social distancing but maintain a good proportion will be. You point about would they then go out and get tested seems a reasonable one in normal circumstances however I stick to my point that yes they would get tested if they wanted to protect their elderly relatives . It is not unusual for younger people to live with parents and visit grandparents.
I don't want to hark on about my elderly mother and am happy to be judged by those in similar positions . Not by those who appear to be making excuses for the behaviour of those going to the pub and similar gatherings , maybe even doing it themselves.
I don't include you in this so there is no misunderstanding.

[Rileybobs]

Fair enough Riley, I may have failed to judge you on merit , perhaps prejudiced by past posts.
My original post compared the queues in recent weeks with queues before Nick Hancock asked young people to think of their grandparents . Prior to that statement I had been able to get tested every week for 4 weeks and by the end there was hardly half a dozen in the queue. The numbers then suddenly exploded and I haven't been able to wait long enough to continue getting tested .
Since the composition of these queues suddenly changed the number of positives in Burnley increased to the extent that we are now back in higher restrictions.
Graphs supplied by the chief medical officer reveal that the increase in positive tests in the last 2-3 weeks nationally have been significant in young people , I think going up to the age around 30.
I accept that not all will be the many irresponsible people going out ignoring social distancing but maintain a good proportion will be. You point about would they then go out and get tested seems a reasonable one in normal circumstances however I stick to my point that yes they would get tested if they wanted to protect their elderly relatives . It is not unusual for younger people to live with parents and visit grandparents.
I don't want to hark on about my elderly mother and am happy to be judged by those in similar positions . Not by those who appear to be making excuses for the behaviour of those going to the pub and similar gatherings , maybe even doing it themselves.
I don't include you in this so there is no misunderstanding.

Thanks for the response. It’s been publicised that the biggest increase of cases is with ‘younger people’. But this demographic is also the same that’s being asked to go back to work, being encouraged to eat at restaurants, have children who go to nursery and school (where social distancing is practically impossible). I have no doubt that some people who have been to illegal gatherings have contributed to the positive cases but I think the numbers will be relatively tiny.

In terms of making excuses for people going to the pub, why would people need to make excuses? We’ve been told that we’re allowed to go to the pub, there’s no excuses to make. I know that you’ve not included me in that, but I don’t mind saying that I’ve been to the pub a number times during recent months, and I’ve also enjoyed a week in Italy. I don’t have any moral issues with doing either.

[Boss Hogg]

Pubs that don’t do food should be shut. Flying should be for necessary flights and business only not so chavs can have their annual holiday abroad and people need educating what 2 metres mean. A lot of people are not social distancing at all and I’ve not seen any groups of teenagers doing it at all. People will pay for their stupidity when there is another lockdown and no furlough. Shame for all the people that stuck to the rules.

[Local cricketer]

Fair enough Riley, I may have failed to judge you on merit , perhaps prejudiced by past posts.
My original post compared the queues in recent weeks with queues before Nick Hancock asked young people to think of their grandparents . Prior to that statement I had been able to get tested every week for 4 weeks and by the end there was hardly half a dozen in the queue. The numbers then suddenly exploded and I haven't been able to wait long enough to continue getting tested .
Since the composition of these queues suddenly changed the number of positives in Burnley increased to the extent that we are now back in higher restrictions.
Graphs supplied by the chief medical officer reveal that the increase in positive tests in the last 2-3 weeks nationally have been significant in young people , I think going up to the age around 30.
I accept that not all will be the many irresponsible people going out ignoring social distancing but maintain a good proportion will be. You point about would they then go out and get tested seems a reasonable one in normal circumstances however I stick to my point that yes they would get tested if they wanted to protect their elderly relatives . It is not unusual for younger people to live with parents and visit grandparents.
I don't want to hark on about my elderly mother and am happy to be judged by those in similar positions . Not by those who appear to be making excuses for the behaviour of those going to the pub and similar gatherings , maybe even doing it themselves.
I don't include you in this so there is no misunderstanding.

Wasn't Nick Hancock the bloke off they think its all over? Stoke fan I think

[Rileybobs]

Wasn't Nick Hancock the bloke off they think its all over? Stoke fan I think

Yeah. Once saw him outside the Turf against Stoke probably 20 years ago. It’s easy to confuse our health secretary with a comedian though.

[Elizabeth]

The pub reference was in response to the attitude expressed on here today that giving your mother approaching 90 a hug after she asked for one in her own home is no different than a few 17-18 year olds hugging in a pub. If people think this is the same thing I can't help them
I have absolutely no issue with people going to the pub and behaving responsibly.

[Bordeauxclaret]

Up to £10k fines for not sticking to isolation if you test positive.

Discouraging people from taking tests during a pandemic might open up a few discussions.

[taio]

Up to £10k fines for not sticking to isolation if you test positive.

Discouraging people from taking tests during a pandemic might open up a few discussions.

Do you disagree with it? Personally I think those who test positive and don't self isolate are a disgrace. I think the punishment should be more severe.

[TheFamilyCat]

10 grand, could be a million, it will make no difference as it will be almost impossible to enforce.

[taio]

10 grand, could be a million, it will make no difference as it will be almost impossible to enforce.

Still right to put in place stricter measures. Hard to enforce but nowhere near impossible - I know Lancashire Constabulary are increasingly responding to serious breaches of the rules.

[Spijed]

How can you have restrictions and still expect people to go into an office?

That doesn't make sense.

[Jenny55]

How can you have restrictions and still expect people to go into an office?

That doesn't make sense.

None of it makes sense. It’s all too vague, and that’s the problem. I just reassure myself by looking at the minimal daily death totals in relation to infection rates and also by realising that the government advisors/scientists haven’t got a clue.

[taio]

How can you have restrictions and still expect people to go into an office?

That doesn't make sense.

Through effective social distancing and infection prevention and control. And of course not permitting anyone with symptoms or a positive swab to attend the office.

[Jenny55]

Do you disagree with it? Personally I think those who test positive and don't self isolate are a disgrace. I think the punishment should be more severe.

Yes those who test positive and don’t self isolate are a disgrace, however if they are struggling financially they have the dilemma of do I stay at home or do I go to work and earn money? Some people don’t have the luxury of good salaries and being paid whilst they are isolating. I don’t agree with it but I can understand why they may do it.

[taio]

Yes those who test positive and don’t self isolate are a disgrace, however if they are struggling financially they have the dilemma of do I stay at home or do I go to work and earn money? Some people don’t have the luxury of good salaries and being paid whilst they are isolating. I don’t agree with it but I can understand why they may do it.

You raise a good point. I don't know how it will work but those on low income will get a £500 one-off payment for self-isolating.

[Jenny55]

Now that would be beneficial to a low paid worker with a positive test. I must have missed that news, the last I heard was a figure of around £70 per week?

[taio]

Now that would be beneficial to a low paid worker with a positive test. I must have missed that news, the last I heard was a figure of around £70 per week?

It's part of what has only just been announced:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new- ... -isolation

[Spijed]

Through effective social distancing and infection prevention and control. And of course not permitting anyone with symptoms or a positive swab to attend the office.

But I don't see how you can sit an office for 8 hours per day, without touching any paperwork that some else had handled, likewise with a photo copier etc, and remember to wipe everything down anytime you go near another desk.

How can you keep your distance for so many hours?